Our energy future doesn't include nuclear
[{
"name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle CC01 - 300x250",
"id": "AdMediumRectangleCC01300x250",
"class": "inlineCenter",
"insertPoint": "8",
"component": "2963441",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "12"
},{
"name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle LC01 - 300x250",
"id": "AdMediumRectangleCC01300x250",
"class": "inlineCenter",
"insertPoint": "18",
"component": "2963441",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "22"
},{
"name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle LC09 - 300x250",
"id": "AdMediumRectangleLC09300x250",
"class": "inlineCenter",
"insertPoint": "28",
"component": "3252660",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "32"
}]
The decision to close Diablo Canyon Power Plant was made by plant owner Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for economic reasons, and replacement energy will come from greenhouse-gas-free sources.
These facts are contrary to statements made by Ms. Ripley in her letter to New Times titled "Nuclear is the way to go" (April 18).
In a press release titled "Bridging to California's energy future," PG&E describes a reduced need for electricity in California: "State policies that focus on renewables and energy efficiency, coupled with projected lower customer electricity demand in the future, will result in a significant reduction in the need for the electricity produced by Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) past 2025."
In that same press release, PG&E makes it clear that future energy sources will not include fossil fuels: "The parties jointly proposed that DCPP be replaced with a cost-effective, greenhouse-gas-free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and other clean energy resources."
The closure of Diablo Canyon will benefit both PG&E's ratepayers and the environment.
Jane Swanson
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
Do you support the local fishermen's decision to sue over wind farms?
Latest in Letters
Comments (5)
Showing 1-5 of 5
Readers also liked…
